Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bartholomew (American chess player)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

John Bartholomew (American chess player)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ranked outside of the top 1500 chess players in the world (#1762). Outside top 100 players in US. No in depth coverage. Fails notability standards. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  05:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 07:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 07:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This looks like fairly in-depth coverage to me; a whole article on his Chessable start-up of which he is a co-founder. He appears to have a highly visible online presence, being something of a chess YouTube star . Also there is no doubt he is a very strong player - is in fact just outside the top 50 in the US if you exclude inactive players.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet WP:N given the amount of external coverage of him and his startup. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage here in Star Tribune is actually far from mere mention. Also the sources given above and the ones already in the article will surely make him pass WP:GNG, and his low rating cannot determine his notability as some people may have better rating but little coverage and vice versa. –Ammarpad (talk)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.